Loading...
2013-78-Minutes for Meeting February 13,2013 Recorded 2/27/2013DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS 7013.18 NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 4312112013 10;34;56 AM Ili 11111111111111111111 2 - 8 Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2013 Present were Commissioners Alan Unger, Tammy Baney and Anthony DeBone. Also present were Tom Anderson, Interim County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Rob Poirier, 9-1-1 County Service District; David Givans, Internal Auditor; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; Ed Keith, Forester; Chief Jeff Sale, Bend Police Department; Larry Huyn, Bend Fire Department; Chief Tim Moor, Redmond Fire and Rescue; and media representative Sheila Miller of The Bulletin. Chair Unger opened the meeting at 1:35 p.m. 1. 9-1-1 Levy Discussion. The group discussed the proposed May 2013 Local Option Levy, meant to maintain funding for 9-1-1 services. The idea is to pursue another five-year option levy at the same rate. Rob Poirier gave a PowerPoint presentation at this time. (A copy is attached for reference) He said that there is a tax on phone usage, but it is falling behind. The legislature tends to take these funds and put them into the general fund even though these funds are supposed to be set aside to upgrade technology as needed. Chief Sale indicated support because without full backing of 9-1-1, he would have to have more staff. Chief Moor said that the compression ratio is a big factor and this funding is greatly needed. The system works well at this time and he does not want to see it fractured. He and others feel that user fees would destroy this efficient arrangement. Chief Huyn supports the levy, as this is critical to operations. The City of Bend Fire Department spent the last five years building reserves. These reserves will be drained within two years, and having user fees would accelerate this. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 13, 2013 Pagel of 8 Commissioner DeBone asked if it is possible to lower the rate. Compression will be eased by doing this. Mr. Poirier stated that the way compression works is the local option levy is taken off first. Lowering the option levy rate will not help this. Commissioner DeBone said that it would lower the overall tax impact. Mr. Poirier stated that he feels they will come up with a strategy to have permanent funding long before the five-year levy is up. They will ask for the same amount for permanent funding to avoid confusion. Also, they can utilize some funding to help pay for itself. They also have to consider that their equipment is aging and has to be cycled through on a regular basis. A year of normal use equals three years there because the equipment never rests. It is prudent to ask for this amount for those reasons, plus because of the looming PERS situation. Mr. Kropp said user fees are one option, but these services could be provided by other entities. The user fee would detail a budget as approved by the E- board and the County. The other model is having 9-1-1 only as a call center, with the calls being directed to the agency. This means other agencies will have to provide employees for this work and there will be delays in service. Mr. Sale said this would be very inefficient. He has worked where 9-1-1 people are call takers only, with other agencies dispatching. You start having divides between the groups. He would not recommend this. Mr. Poirier stated that some want to have their own people rather than pay for user fees. The current model is the most efficient. They were not successful with the levy last year due to issues that are not apparent at this time. He feels the support is there. Commissioner Baney said she is glad the agencies have a good working relationship. One concern she has is that this is a County issue and not a district or agency situation. Mr. Poirier noted that some of the users showed up today and are willing to help to make this successful. Elected officials need to reach out and take the message to those who need to hear it. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 13, 2013 Page 2 of 8 Commissioner Baney stated she would make herself available to get the message out. It is common sense but still a tax; even if it is not an increase. People need to know what they are getting for their money. Mr. Poirier noted that the work they do makes a huge difference in lives, and people need to know this. Chief Sale said that their users and executive board would develop a plan to get the word out. They will ask all elected officials to join in. Laurie Craghead said that they are down to the wire and the appropriate documents have to be submitted very soon. Chair Unger indicated the Board should vote to show support for having this on the ballot. The reserves will not last forever. Commissioner DeBone asked if the 23 cents is the right number. He wants to keep 9-1-1 strong but feels a few cents less might work better with the public. Mr. Poirier said that they could choose not to levy the whole amount each year. Commissioner Baney feels the E-board will know what level is appropriate. Mr. Poirier stated that every member of the E-board is well aware of the need. He hopes to be up to the full FTE level soon. Some of the contingency resulted because they struggled with enough staffing This kind of savings is not sustainable.. Chair Unger said that dropping it a few cents wouldn't make a big difference to most property owners. They need to keep the system strong. Chief Sale stated that next generation 9-1-1 software and hardware would need to be considered. Much of this will have to be replaced in the next few years. Mr. Poirier added that they have higher costs now with a new building and increased utility costs. Commissioner DeBone would like to see the amount be less. Tom Anderson asked if they know which areas did not support it last time. Mr. Poirier stated they know where to direct their efforts. Mr. Anderson asked if they should have outside assistance with the public relations piece. Mr. Poirier indicated that he could only say so much as an employee, but elected officials are able to do more. They need to pay more attention to it this time around. There are some very negative consequences to the public if it does not pass. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 13, 2013 Page 3 of 8 The Board indicated consensus for staff to go forward with ballot measure documents, which need to be approved by the Board before the end of the month. Mr. Poirier, Chief Sale, Chief Huyn, Chief Moor, Ms. Craghead, and Ms. Miller left the meeting at this time. 2. Discussion of Eastside Forest Collaborative Work Proposal. Ed Keith, Forester, Pete Galigiuri of the Nature Conservancy; and Phil Chang and Andrew Spreadborough of COIC came before the Board. Mr. Spreadborough talked about the Governor's proposed budget, which supports the forest collaborative work proposal. There are two landscape scale projects being considered. These projects bring together stakeholders from all aspects on how to manage forests and address forest health issues. The philosophy is these collaborative groups help to decrease litigation and conflict, making the appropriate work happen quicker. The forests are a big regional asset and need attention. This ties into the economic factors of forest restoration and jobs. Chair Unger said that the legislature and Ways & Means should be directed to support the Governor's budget item. Mr. Chang then referred to the Oregon Forest Health Restoration Economic Assessment document compiled by the Governor's Office, which in large part deals with central and eastern Oregon. (http://www.oregon.gov/gov/docs/OR Forest.-RestorationEcon Assessment_ Nov_2012.pdf Mr. Chang gave an overview of the proposal. It would result in $4.5 million of lottery-supported funds. This helps keep communities safe from wildfire, enhance recreational opportunities, and help fish and wildlife habitat. It is an important economic engine for this region. Recent support from the State focuses on this issue, in the dry parts of the State. About $41 million is spent each year on forest restoration, and that money generates 3,210 jobs. $90.5 million results from this. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 13, 2013 Page 4 of 8 At the local level, they are tracking the Deschutes Collaborative Forest Project; last year this generated 90.5 jobs. This is the same as supporting an employer who asks for help with infrastructure. In this case, it would be social infrastructure to help unlock the process dealing with forests and to keep things moving. When all the parties agree, it brings in money. Collaboration should be viewed as an investment. There are four items the Governor's Office requested. The first three items get about half of the funding; the last goes to the rest. The Nature Conservancy is one of the partners, but works directly with the State as well. They asked for a small grant fund to support the various collaboratives in the region. Mr. Galigiuri said they are currently treating about I% of the problem areas that need it, due to the bottlenecks in the process. Commissioner Baney asked if there are administrative funds offered. Chair Unger said the legislation did not contain money for the collaborate work. Mr. Chang stated that outreach and education is important, especially here, where there are so many people involved in the forest environment. Commissioner Baney wholeheartedly supports this. Commissioner DeBone likes the project but wants to remember that they should use this to keep the process going. He would like to see the money making an impact locally. Chair Unger stated they need to support the forests today for the future. Mr. Galigiuri said over $17 million was spent on the Pole Creek fire, and there is a growing trend for this kind of problem. Forest health makes a big difference in this regard. Mr. Chang stated they went out with a State Forester and saw first-hand that treating the forests now makes a big difference decades later. Part of this situation is that the forests have been really drawn down over the past century, and that value needs to be rebuilt. Commissioner Baney asked if there is an opportunity to reopen any sawmills. Mr. Chang says there are just a few still in operation but they need more consistent timber coming in. No one will make this kind of investment unless they are sure there will be materials. There are other businesses that rely on these products of varying types and sizes. There is good potential if the supply is reliable. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 13, 2013 Page 5 of 8 Mr. Galigiuri stated the local legislators are being advised, but it helps to have local electeds showing support. Mr. Spreadborough added that other partners are on board. Commissioner Baney said that AOC is probably supportive and should take an active position. Chair Unger wants this to stay in the Governor's budget and the Board needs to push for this through AOC, the legislature and other stakeholders. The key issues are jobs and economic development, forest health, an opportunity to work with the U.S. Forest Service to benefit this region, watershed health, air quality, and public safety and protecting communities. Mr. Chang stated there are some rumblings about coming to counties and requesting the use of county funds to invest in this. This is a loan with repayment terms. Commissioner DeBone stated that this is different from lottery money. Mr. Chang said that using State funds for federal forests is a new concept. Some counties have to be very supportive so they don't lose an important industry in their areas. Mr. Spreadborough and Mr. Galigiuri left the meeting at this time. Mr. Keith advised that Katy Lighthall has taken a position with another agency. She will be missed and hard to place. They have to provide a program director for Project Wildfire. This search will take place over the next month or so. Mr. Keith left the meeting. 3. Other Items. Mr. Anderson stated that there was a handout provided at a previous executive session and a reporter in the room asked for it. County Counsel advised that it is not a good practice to do this even if you ask for it back. It could bring about a public records request for that document. County Counsel feels they are not entitled to receive it. Commissioner Baney feels it is awkward to discuss a document in front of them while the other individual cannot understand the references. What is the difference if they can look at it, or should they just keep it out of their hands. They can't report on it if it is addressed in executive session. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 13, 2013 Page 6of8 Mr. Anderson stated that the Board could do this if they want, but it makes it more of a public document. He said that it is his preference not to have documents in the meeting at all. The idea is not to tip your hand in a real estate transaction. Mr. Kropp said the purpose of an executive session is to brief the Board. They are not there for the media. They get to listen so it is not secret government and decisions. If this occurs again, they can say they will release the information when it is ready, if it is at any point. Mr. Kropp stated that this has only been an issue once. Mr. Anderson said that regarding funding work through EDCO, they will meet with them on three levels. They should talk to Board regarding the business loan program, Founders Pad startup accelerator, and lottery funds. There will be a work session of the Board with EDCO and Founders Pad to go into detail. City representatives could be there as well. This would be for Informational purposes. The Board needs to go through prioritization exercise, and allocation to first the tier of lottery fund use: to EDCO, with the baseline amounts first. Then they will see what is left. Commissioner DeBone said he is asked on a regular basis when this will happen. BANEY: Move approval of the work session minutes of January 30 and February 4, and the business meeting of February 4. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. Being no further items addressed, the work session ended at 3:10, at which time the Board went into executive session. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 13, 2013 Page 7 of 8 Day of 41 ~ --f' 2013 for the DATED this Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Alan Unger, Chair afi~~ ) Tammy Baney, Vice C it ATTEST: Anthony DeBone, Commis inner Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 13, 2013 Page 8 of 8 .r GCti Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www,deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2013 1. 9-1-1 Levy Discussion - Rob Poirier 2. Discussion of Eastside Forest Collaborative Work Proposal - Andrew Spreadborough & Phil Chang, COIC 3. Other Items PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), litigation; ORS I92.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues. Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. if you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572. Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-I to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. N t~ ni ~cc - E ! S ~k 1 M t7 `a ~a LA February 5, 2013 To: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners From: Andrew Spreadborough and Phil Chang, COIC Re: Governor's Proposed Budget Item to Support Forest Collaboratives Overview: Central Oregon is home to two large landscape-scale forest restoration collaboratives • Deschutes Collaborative Forest Project (www.deschutescoIlaborativeforest. or ) ) • Ochoco Forest Restoration Collaborative (https://sites.google.com/site/ochococollaborative U N These collaboratives are helping to resolve past conflicts and gridlock around national forest management and to forge new agreements that allow us to get more acres treated and make our communities safer and our forests more healthy and resilient. Forest restoration also makes a large contribution to our local economy, providing work in the woods for local contractors and timber and biomass for local sawmills and processing facilities. A recent state analysis commissioned by the Governor found that investing $1 million in forest restoration generates 57 local jobs. While our local collaboratives have made a real difference in allowing active management to proceed in our national forests, it is a constant challenge to find the funds to operate the collaboratives. Stable funding would allow our collaboratives to have an even greater impact. Investing in collaborative agreement helps generate additional funds for on-the-ground work. The Deschutes Collaborative took years to build but was then able to secure one of ten Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program grants awarded nationally, adding $10.1 million to the Deschutes National Forest's implementation budget over a 10 year period. Grant funds like these can implement the agreements developed by the Collaboratives, but they cannot be used to run the Collaboratives and build the agreements in the first place. Because Central Oregon is recognized for leadership in the collaborative forest restoration movement, our region would be poised to secure a substantial amount of the grant funding from the Small Grant Program included in the Governor's proposed budget. Grants to Central Oregon collaborative would result in more agreement, more acres treated, healthier forests, lower fire risk to communities, more wood for mills, and better habitat for fish and wildlife. The region could also benefit if the Technical Assistance component is funded and provides more stable resources to Nature Conservancy staff based in and serving Central Oregon. This is a key moment for collaborative projects in Central Oregon. Deschutes Collaborative work in the West Bend and Popper project areas will enhance and protect key recreational assets, reduce fire risk to Bend and Sisters, and produce significant amounts of saw log volume for industry. The Ochoco Collaborative has had some early successes in its first year of operation but is just reaching the point where collaboration will pay off in more and better work on the ground in the Forest. See attached legislative policy draft (dated 11/20/12) for more detail. Request: Regional support for this concept/state budget item. 0 Okr.c,C SOW 11QN5 Federal Forestland Advisory Committee - Implementation Working Group Funding Subcommittee Recommendations for the 2013 Legislative Policy Option Proposal DISCUSSION DRAFT --11/20/12 1. Goal Statement Provide a base level of state-provided staff and budget to support efforts to restore forest health and resiliency of "dry side" national forests in Orego " the Dry Forest Zone - by providing staff support and financial assistance to collaborative groups. Success is defined as the accelerated pace and scale of science-based roatrrieints (often referred to as "landscape-scale") that restore ecological function, and reduce fire risk while producing forest-related jobs, commercial wood productsi acrd usable biomass,, This proposal is aimed squarely at assistirt0llaborative groups sere"rrg.Oregon's seven dry side national forests (Appendix B). It has`nq specific attkempt to address, wet side national forests, land managed by the Bureau of Lard Management, private land or state land unless identified by a collabW4fitue as an action to complement efforts in the dry forest. II. Background More than a century of manaqement act cis including - but not, limited to fire suppression and timber harve6f,and grazl4practices ,,,'wmbined with current legal, regulatory and financial constraints -,are threatening the healtl'i and resiliency of Oregon's eastside national forests and rural commUlhities. This legacy of past practices and exclusion of periodic Ipuwintensity ffresFh svamrecl the strud4re and composition of forests, creating higher, -'urt►form stocking dens les, increased fuel !pads, and a higher proportion of fire- intolerant tree specie`.,Thes4epnditions heig n the risk and susceptibility of these forests to uncharacteristically Ike, intense wildfires, raddition to disease and abnormal populations of insects tliaf'Attack str6esed stands of trees. Efforts to add`es these co ions have been unsuccessful over the past two decades, although recent,-Worts by C ress and the U.S. Forest Service to initiate and fund Collaborative Forest.Lands. , Restoration Projects nationally, including three CFLRP sites in Oregon, show prodiisej pite the intentions and work of Oregon's congressional delegation, the need to;ble or triple the rate and scale of restoration in the Dry Forest Zone is urgent. The solution lies in putting Oregonians to work restoring the ecological health and resiliency of our public forests while producing jobs, forest products and woody biomass. Doing this will help restore rural economic and community health by creating a base of wealth to attract and retain workers, families and other industries. Restoration efforts will protect Oregon's old growth forest heritage, as well as protect communities in the wildland urban interface (WUI). Restoration activities may include thinning small trees, removing merchantable timber and reintroducing prescribed fire where appropriate. It may also include reducing the adverse Discussion Draft 0 C) EUN $OLLI HONS effects of unmanaged roads, invasive weeds and unregulated grazing. Along with these vegetation management activities, forest restoration presents opportunities to improve the overall condition of our forested watersheds and related habitat. These activities include: upgrading stream crossing structures, improving and reducing road networks, stabilizing stream banks and reintroducing native plant species. Retaining ecologically important older trees is also important. These often large-diameter trees have high ecological value and are more resistant to natural disturbance such as fire because of their thick bark and high canopy. As well, these trees sequester large amounts of biogenic carbon, which can contribute to mitigating the effects of climate change. In recent years, collaboration has emerged as an effective way to rebuild trust and foster local agreement among forest workers, scientists, environmentalists, government officials and others on how to sustainably manage public forests. In Oregon, there are now at least 20 community-based collaboratives working to inform sustainable forest management on public lands (all 11 national forests in Oregon) by ensuring local resources are managed in concert with community values. Though not new, the collaborative model has experienced increasing success in Oregon to broaden stakeholder participation and increase stakeholder agreement on how to address emerging forest health issues. To date, collaboratives have made significant headway across the state in developing stand-level forest restoration projects that have resulted in the implementation of thinning projects and watershed improvements. Successful collaboration can and has effectively sped the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and avoided costly appeals and litigation. Effective collaboration and implementation of landscape-scale restoration and long-term stewardship depends on strong local organizations to shepherd the collaborative agreement through implementation and larger landscape. planning efforts. Local collaborative groups that have organizational and collaborative capacity are better able to work with federal land managers to ensure creation of local jobs, restoration of healthy and resilient forests, and identification of cost and energy savings through the utilization of local forest and other resources. To be effective, collaborative groups require access to existing and emerging ecological and social science to both inform their work and build solutions that are rooted in a deep understanding of their landscape. Community based economic development and forest restoration depends on community capacity for long-term stewardship. Some federal legislation requires the USDA Forest Service to engage forest collaboratives as part of the forest planning process. III. Rationale The Federal Forest Advisory Committee - Implementation Work Group works to implement the recommendations from the Achieving Oregon's Vision for Federal Forestlands report adopted by the Board of Forestry in 2009. Among those is the recommendation to support local collaboratives to ensure Oregon's forests contribute to the health of local economic, ecological and social aspects of communities statewide. To achieve these goals, the report recommends engaging local collaborative groups in cooperation with state and federal agencies to assess forest health conditions and plan projects at the landscape scale in order to address high priority needs. The FFAC IWG is working to develop more stable funding Discussion Draft 2 OKHAON SOLL I IONS mechanisms to contribute to organizational stability and support the scaling up of landscape level agreement, treatment, restoration and monitoring and evaluation activities. IV. Proposal Overview A. Area of proposed focus - Oregon's Dry Forest Zone Deschutes NF • Fremont-Winema NF • Malheur NF • Ochoco NF • Rogue River-Siskiyou NF (dry-side only) • Umatilla NF • Wallowa-Whitman NF B. Agency request 1. Staffing - Deputy Natural Resod es Advisor for East Side National Forest Health Restoration' (Deputy), assacaed staff (see detail in. V) , 2. Technical Assistance--Provision to fund statewide organizations'tbat support forest collaborative groups'; ~q effectively participate and contribute to landscape- scale restoration in the Dry Fit Zone of eastern and southwest Oregon (see detail in VI) 3. Small Grant.Program - Estaf~ishment of a Small Griot Program to directly fund DFZ coltalaaratives', own neeft (sea detail ins Vll) V. Staffing a A. :Deputy.Natural Reso'urces Advisor f6f East Side National Forest Health Cr6ate a new position., Depu* Natural Rekurces Advisor for East Side National Forest Health Restoration budgeted within the Oregon Department of Forestry, who reports to the (7'QVernor'S Naturak Resources',®ffice. The deputy will be a champion of dry forest zone restoration using th collabora'tive process. The position's purpose is to ensure local, state and federal ' dination that will result in accelerating landscape-scale restoration in the dry for,.' types of eastern Oregon in a manner that will retain and create local jobs and associated existing and emerging industries. The deputy position will be responsible for 1. Policy outreach and advocacy 2. Main point of contact and coordination with USDA Forest Service and Region 6 3. State agency communications and coordination 4. Communication with and support for forest collaborative groups 5. Hold collaboratives accountable for use of any state funds 6. ' Placeholder only. Title should fit within GNRO organizational structure. Discussion Draft 3 OREGON SOLL ONS The deputy will receive part-time staff support to ensure effective and efficient delivery of their work. The deputy would have the following duties: 1. Policy outreach and advocacy a. Serves as the Governor's expert on federal and state policies affecting dry side national forest management policies, especially those related to forest health restoration. b. Advocates for funding and adoption of administrative and legislative policies that support landscape scale restoration ef`dry side forests in a manner that will retain and create local jobs. F: c. Builds alliances and coordinates with relevant` aunty, state, and federal and tribal agencies, as well as elected ,'Officials and tF►ek staff. Coordinates with Oregon Department of ForestrV'Jjegislative staff in'these efforts. 2. Main point of contact with USDA Forest Service and Region 6 a. Serves as the state's primary c6htact with USDA Forest Service in Washington, D.C,,, as well as with the Regional Forester for Region 6. b. Seeks out and applies for federal funding c. Ensures that the priorities of t1 .state for all torestlands in dry side national forests are understood be and welPmordinated with the U.S. Forest Service and the B4 u of Land Management d. Represents the tovernor's NaWr Resourcep Office in negotiations with the US©PForest Ser+?ice regardi, ~ a Memorandum of Agreement that could provide slate funds to the For Service for funding Forest Service work that d for forest health and fire resiliency results in addNd"aicreage treatio 3. Agency communications and coordiAationr° a. Creates cpportunitj for the State to enhance landscape-scale restoration of dry forests through regular communication and partnership with relevant county, state, and federl~ and tribal agencies. b. Directs and supports state agency participation in forest collaborative groups and the related projects they are advancing. • ODF, ODOE, ODFW, DEQ, OWEB, Oregon Solutions and other state agencies could play a role in national forest health restoration projects. • These roles will require interagency direction and leadership to create unified state input into the restoration process, including considering how local groups such as forest collaboratives, watershed councils, and soil and water conservation districts may engage in forest restoration. c. Works interagency and across state lines (e.g., Western Governors Association) to influence stakeholders toward forest restoration projects d. Attends meetings of the FFAC-lWG to keep group informed of collaborative activities, restoration projects, etc. Discussion Draft 4 0 c RF..c()N So UIIONS e. As appropriate and needed, briefs the Board of Forestry on the status of national forest health restoration f. Represents agency positions in presentation at conferences and other forums g. Prepares a biennial report to the Board of Forestry and the Legislature on the investments and outcomes of collaborative work 4. Communication with and support for forest collaborative groups a. Creates and maintains relationships with local community based organizations, collaborative groups, interest groups, and others with the aim to provide assistance and problem solve in their effort to develop projects that improve forest health and resiliency. b. Promotes and encourages strengthening the work of existing local collaborative groups to address forest health problems on federal forestland. Assists in the formation of new collaborative groups if warranted. c. Meets with established and emerging collaborative groups that serve dry side national forests, identifies funding needs identifies opportunities to leverage additional funds and resources in discussion with the IWG and others. d. Identifies resource and funding needs of collaborative groups, and then uses knowledge, experience, the expertise of government, nonprofit, and private professional expertise, programs, and network to help them increase their capacity to meet their awn needs., 5. Hold collaboratives..accountable for use of any state funds a. Assisto-the colWoratives in establishing benchmarks by which they can hold themiselves accountable for use of any state funds B. Other staf%44 y„ 0.25 FTE:administb*ive support. 0.4 FTE grankadminist for or contract the administration out to a separate entity Discussion Draft 5 OkeG(?N S )LUi2NS VI. Science Support and Technical Assistance A. Overview On a competitive basis using the state procurement process, contract with non- governmental organizations that have experience working with collaboratives to make the groups more effective and successful in reaching state goals. It is envisioned that the Deputy Advisor would lead the procurement process, aided by the Department of Forestry. B. Rationale Given the breadth and strength of these relationshipS;_we believe it would be counter- productive for the state to step in with a new actor/lpM s. ,rt C. Specific duties may include: Science support and technical assistanee,;facilitation services; peer-to-peer learning; development of regional networks that wilWnhance the work of landscape-scale collaborative groups; ecological and socia[ science support to inform rationale for project prioritization and development of project, design and`idiplementation; and appropriate monitoring of ecological, soci ►t:aqd economic impacts"f collaborative effdrts; outreach, education and media relations and Mpstration of the aggregated impact of multiple collaborative groups. v D. Generally duties: may include"'' j Promote work consistent with and as pros .Wbed by the dovernor's Federal Forest Advisory Council action plait lby developing",restoration principles and guidelines; evaluating approachk to irnprvvewplanniny and implementation efficiencies; providing science YeCl tiical assistance and facilitation,"and completing research on innovative functirtg t'-- to accelerate forest Ir6ptprafton and implementation of science based "treatments acrossthe landscape, includingon both public and private lands. Discussion Draft 6 0 URFG( N SULU IONS VII. Small Grant Program A. Overview A small grant program called the "Collaborative Capacity Fund" (CCF) will be established by the State of Oregon to provide small grants (e.g., up to $50,000 per biennium) to forest collaborative groups to effectively participate and contribute to landscape scale restoration in the DFZ of eastern Oregon. The provision of state funds will underscore the importance that the State of Oregon places on collaboratives as a means of restoring forest health and resilience, while improving local economies. This program is anticipated to augment the capacity-building grant programs of the National Forest Foundation (NFF). The NFF supports Community-based conservation (funding, technical assistance, mentoring, capacity building workshops, and facilitation of peer learning opportunities to enable sharing of stories arid..best practices). B. Rationale Collaboratives are self-governing and self-funding; therefore, for the,state to play a role in their development, it must be able to offer tangible support. Collafa Mtives are often organized as non-profit organizations and se4l >out grants from private and public foundations, individuals and governments. A smalt grant program would ensure stronger linkages between state government and Oregon citizens who serve on collaborative groups. C. Administration 1. Administration of the grant program will be of the highest integrity: fair, transparent, and result in outcomes that support the overall goal of accelerating the scale and pace of forest restoration. 2. Possibilities for grant administration and oversight include a state agency such as ODF or OWEB, ora third party. 3. The entity administering the CCF shall develop evaluative criteria to prioritize the distribution of"CCF grants. The criteria will reflect prioritization of groups involved in multi-year, landscape-scale efforts that are supported by a collaboratively agreed to landscape strategy. 4. The'GCF will be administered on a rolling application basis in order meet the needs` of the collaborative groups without making them dependent on the funds for long-term operating expenses. 5. The CCF will be a small grant fund with a set maximum to be determined 6. The CCF will endeavor to have a straightforward and simple application format with clear instructions, reporting requirements and fiscal responsibilities. Discussion Draft (.NEGON SOLO1ONS D. Examples of Eligible Activities and Expenses Eligible Activities Eligible Expenses 1. Collaborative group meetings, field tours, project committees and other activities related to the design of forest restoration projects Facilitation, project management, and coordination Scientific (ecological, social and economic) analysis and mapping Monitoring and evaluation Outreach and communication activities 1. Personnel 2. Consultants 3. Meetings 4. Travel 5. Office space and equipment 6. Printing 7. Communications (phone, website) 8. Database management 9. ; Equipment 'tQOther justified expenses 2. 3. 4. 5. VIII. Suggested Outcomes A. Base capacity for collabdrativagroups: ?1 1. Local collaborative groups are well staffed and supported to meet their goals 2. Collaborative grqu ,'s <iave a diver§ified funding base derVve from at least three different sources (e g.,: philanthropic individual, corporate, state, federal) 3. Collaboratives, have recrw'ted and maintained diverse local and distant stakeholder participation in the collaborative landscape planning process 4.ive hasp supplied a continuum of collaboratively agreed-to ;Zq ommeridations to t be.. National" Forest it4epresents B. Specific landscape-level project outcomes: 1. Th National Forest has a iandscape scale strategy informed by involvement and supt,of the collabotive that'will reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire and enhance;,?cological aril economic resiliency of the forest and the local community. 2. Over 10 years, key indicators reflecting implementation of forest management projects shtpositivEupward trend, and the landscape experiences a change in the Fire Regime GarK>~itjcn Class toward the desired future condition 3. There is an increase in the number of acres treated annually within the collaboratively agreed to landscape strategy IX. Future The problem of our national forests was 100 years in the making; it will not go away in a biennium. The IWG anticipates support for forest collaboratives - one or two per national forest - will be an ongoing need; however, outcomes must justify the investment. Discussion Draft 8 Q ~p ~t Gorr L y l S m 0- M o O O Q Q L LM (D O a ..n • (Tj ` M U) M U) f~ r ~ j cu O 4- - N _0 c L L os= O 0 (1) LL z3 - 4-- o E L ' o -tf o p - - O L E L O a _0 O o E L 5-0 ~O M cn (D o y> 4-0 n~ 0 0 111i~ O • ( ^ = M I _ O a) c6 U) .~c -C ~-a Z) L cn aD o 0 = (n C: a) ~ 4-4 a E O 0 cn ~I ~ Yi a Q: 2 0 E E O cn um V Q LL LL oow► N lr" C7 N ■ w cn 00 N O ca E E 0 v as OC ~}Ar+I W cA !Q O L 1 C ca C O (R Q. 4-A -1 m Cl) N C3) 42 -S O 3 0 O 4, N N 0-0 L O O N N N O N 0- O z3 LL (n a O L 4+ ❑ a) a) 0 Z3 I -0 -0 0 O ui ca CL v :3 0 CY) CD o ° Ca ca O o C ~ ~Occ C,co 0 o QJ - N O ~ c L CIO cn 0 U) (6 7. cu U O C ~ O U > _ C O C13 CL L- E d W M i--' _0 ..C (U co w cn E c O 0 N 0) O U _ t~ CU N . M (u ~ ~ :3 O _ ~ + O U CY) C: LL N O L- O o L) 7 . O O O 7 -0 U cu 0 Q C: LL . ~ c6 ~ O c6 (D ( U N c6 o n 0. ~ ° o ca -0 c: U ~E = 0 N N "O 3 C -O -0 N 0 O N m N - o n U N = Q w N L- - 0 i 2 O a) O LL" O O -0 to -0 4 O O Q C: a) o cu j C, Q N ~ U ~ 0 Q ~ ~ ~ ~ N (n ~ c . ° a) ~ to y 0 am O w 0 o L- " ~ aa) -0 o v CU N a) M m o O ~ o c6 to C.) .w -0 -0 zj ~f p a) ch as a) m c t~ C~ a cn 0 O~ to - E 0 cu co co 0) C cu CO cu -0 t► N 6 ci a: 1. W W F 4~ r z` 0 ~I vLb: 4MA m ` Y L 4ma N ■ ■ CD N 2 . O m cn U 0 N ° L ca a > a ca Q v :3 U) 0 in p 0 cn CL N U to N n L :3 m Q E p U U) C c U) C: CD N a' 0) N co V a) L- O E O . as cn W L - U O C O Q ~ J, Y ~ U + C 13 Q O 0 a) cn 0 U N O O ❑ - n O q) p cu - ti U a) > C: O t L- O ca O O O - (U ) N it cn E Zi Z- cu W a) U) C cn a) t LL to E ° O Q - 0- 0 O a) a) O O cu 4- 0 ,/I Fu a, o L ° o 0 o o ° > C- 0- Un L ~ S; - ~ ) C: ° m ~ ~ (J)L O , L a) D a) q c U ° 0 L CY) ~ -0 o o o - L- CL 4-- . Q 4) CL f t5 (1) j 0) r o ~ a) N ° CL _ a) ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ o ~ oc o CD zz L- O r - E Q a- - - -0 N -c- o m m C 0 U 7, CD + O U C ,0 O Q. -0 N M M N (D L O U) O ,0 CO - N cn (D N C -0 CL o w a) (D C 0- - E U N O CL (U M c N 0 _ CCf O O O ~ N O j O • Ur ~ U U) Z3 N N ~ m (n U 2 Z3 rL m c Q ~ 0 u - c~ O Z cn co co r N M C~ I Wl i cc t t Sx_ O 07 C- CA U (c co U) Q Cl) Q a) m CY) 4-0 7FD C: N 7C3 cu O E U a) a) a O :3 C O A O cu m a) V E (U 0) ~ 0 (L) CU m L CL C E f1) 0 (n Q C: LL ~ O Z o-+ O O - c: a) N O -C U (6 cu N O U) O 0 a) L O Q- E O C - (6 O /~1 V N O = 07 W O ~ U) 0 U) O C- N a) O m U Z 07 O U CU L) O L O O cn .U O U C ) C- (11) U U) J Cl) > O U U) L O O O (u O +1 " CU U C O F +-1 O O = -0 7E U O O O O docurrwnt Reproduces Poorly (Archived) MK to kick off: Thank you Chair Verger, Chair Roblan, Chair Hanna, Members of the Committee. My name is Matt Krumenauer, I am a Senior Policy Analyst at the Oregon Department of Energy, here today from the Federal Forest Advisory Committee Implementation Work Group to discuss the results of the National Forest Health Restoration Economic Assessment. Economic Regions of Eastern Oregon 0 wi Good Afternoon Chair Verger, Chair Roblan, Chair Hanna, members of the committee. My name is Tom Potiowsky, Director of the Northwest Economic Research Center at Portland State University, where I am also chair of the economics department. In order to provide an estimate of the economic impact of increased forest restoration activities, we first had to establish a baseline of what was currently happening - the type of jobs supported by restoration, and the economic impact that current activities provide. We could then use that baseline to estimate what an increase would look like. The study looked at all of the National Forests east of the Cascades, including the eastern portion of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. We did not include the Mt. Hood National Forest because of issues with the Bull Run Watershed. We did not include west-side national forests or O&C forests managed by the Bureau of Land Management, because those are significantly different issues. The results are really focused on the impacts of restoration activities in this region. The statewide impacts are probably a little larger that what we are reporting, but I will get into that in a few moments. Now that we have the region, lets look at what is currently happening. 7 Cost of treating 129,000 acres Average (2007-2011) Costs of Restoration Treatments Averaged Annual, 2007 2011 Total Cost $0,781,OW Commercial py, 5lewardship Contracts, ' $3,ZZ3,tltltl do AL Nt $ei iimberSales, 513, ~91.,EY7fb Average Annual Cost of USFS dry-side fnr~,t rF;traaxian. 2007-2011. Data Source: 0 'IM, FACrs database, u5r 4 Cost Surrey, 2012. On an average annual basis, the Forest Service invests nearly $41 million on forest restoration, treating 129,000 acres - or about 1.4 percent of the national forestland in eastern Oregon not restricted from active forest management. The agency spends most of this budget on non-commercial forest restoration through service contracting. The Forest Service spends an average of $460 per acre on timber sales, $330 per acre on stewardship contracting and $265 per acre on service contracting. Timber sales involve more in-depth planning processes, sale preparation, and administration - as compared to the other categories of restoration. 8 This current level of investment - $40.8 million - has the following impacts: • 2,310 jobs, including direct, indirect and induced • $90.5 million in income $231.5 million in industrial output • $3.6 million in state tax revenue. The jobs created by restoration activities includes those in the Malheur Lumber Company sawmill in John Day, employees of Quicksilver Contracting out of Bend (a restoration contractor in Bend), and T2, a company that transports processed biomass. The average wage for these jobs is $40,000 annually. The industrial output includes the value of the goods produced by sawmills, veneer and plywood mills, biomass plants and wood chip facilities. This also includes the spending on services - truck repairs, purchase of equipment, supplies and materials to complete the work. The $3.6 million in state tax revenue includes state income, corporate, fuels, and any harvest tax generated through these activities. 9